Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nergal Pendragon" data-source="post: 6501967" data-attributes="member: 6777649">Being a defender wasn't a fighter's role; it was a tactical consideration. In fact, during 3E days, the fighter really wasn't even good at being a tank; the paladin and barbarian were simply better at it, due either to capacity to self-heal or simply having more hit points. When you start considering dropping someone from orbit onto the enemy simply because they'll not only survive the fall, but still be capable of battle... that's when you know you've got a class that is capable of taking some serious damage. And I understand the idea of teleporting the party into orbit to kill them mostly faded away with 3E because classes like the barbarian could survive reentry.So, yes, for saying "X is a role that must exist as a player choice from character creation, and class Y must do X" 4E did invent roles. Which isn't a bad thing.3E didn't hide it. Take a look at the class options. You still have your warriors (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger). You still had your priests (cleric, druid, some say bard goes here). You still had your magic users (sorcerer, wizard, some say bard goes here). It was pretty much codified and expanded, and Pathfinder simply codified and expanded it further.However, must a particular magic user act as a controller or a striker? No. Must a particular martial class act as a defender or striker? No. Each class was capable, though player choices, to adjust their tactics to a particular role. Some classes were inherently better at it than others, but that didn't mean you had to go that route. And, with quite a few, you could shift between which role you were playing. A lot of the powergamers of 3E didn't shift roles, but that doesn't mean they had the best way to play. 4E kinda made it a point to codify that a particular class must fit a particular tactical consideration by assigning it that consideration. Was that bad? No, it wasn't.Please read this entire section before you react. I state some things pretty bluntly, but that is just my nature. By the end, I believe you will see what I truly mean when I state them.If you are getting the vibe that saying "they made that up for 4E" is dismissing your playing style... then, yes, you are playing DnD wrong. Because you have made it so personal you cannot accept anything that you see as criticism without taking it as an attack on your playing style. I've been there and I know what it is like; that's when you must take a step back, as it is becoming a barrier between yourself and others due to your extreme investment in it.For me, that game was 3.0E. I was heavily invested in it when it hit, and involved in some very nasty flamewars when 3.5 came out. And, in fact, when 3.5E ended and 4E was announced, I was one of the people dancing, celebrating, and rubbing it in the face of 3.5E fans. For me, 4E was victory over those who had repeatedly attacked my playing style. So, yes, I was part of the problem that helped create the divide within the DnD community which ultimately killed 4E.Years later, looking back, I have had to eat a massive amount of crow. Because, I recognize something important: A lot of the criticisms about 3.0 were, well, right. And a lot of items I took as attacks on my playing style were not, but were simple statements of how 3.0 was. And I had to accept that some of the things I bitterly defended as being tradition because I believed what WotC said were, in fact, things created just for 3.0; that didn't make them bad or good, just different.So, yes, I was playing DnD wrong. And now I play Pathfinder. And play 5E. And Savage Worlds. And Numenera, when I can find a game (it seems 5E is killing Numenera, from what I've seen; games are massively harder to find since 5E came out).In any case, I think you are too personally invested right now, like I was. That is why you are taking offense to statements that are not intended to be offensive or dismissive at all. In fact, if you'll look throughout my posts, you'll notice I try my best to be supportive and make it clear I am not dismissing your play style.I think you're looking at roles the wrong way.Pretty much, the issue with roles prior to 4E isn't that they didn't exist... but that they were defined more by class. Were you a martial fighter? A divine caster? An arcane caster? A thief? Could you do the job well compared to the standard version? Those were the considerations of what a role was before 4E. Items like defender, controller, striker... these were not roles; these were tactical choices, and the same character could shift between them as the situation warranted. So, prior to 4E, there was no need to classify a character via striker, defender, controller, leader... because any particular class could potentially fill any of those roles at any moment.Also, you're thinking about it wrong from the issue of 5E classes. What's to stop an Eldritch Knight from acting as a striker? It comes down to which spells they pick, as quite a few evocation spells work more for the striker role than for controller (in fact, evocation in 5E kinda sucks for the controller role). What's to stop the Battle Master from acting as a striker or a leader? What's to stop the Champion from acting as a hit-and-run specialist instead of a tank?You can point out how the abilities lend themselves to a certain way to play those based on how 4E did it... and I can tell you that I can see ways to play them in roles outside of what you said, without losing effectiveness, under 5E rules. It all comes down to strategy.</blockquote>

Verification